Israel may have destroyed Iranian centrifuges simply by cutting power(theintercept.com)
theintercept.com
Israel may have destroyed Iranian centrifuges simply by cutting power
https://theintercept.com/2021/04/13/iran-nuclear-natanz-israel/
286 comments
> The Manhattan project was able uranium purified to get a bomb working without PLCs and networks.
By enlisting thousands of young women to watch the knobs and dial buttons.
https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/women-who-buil...
They didn't even know they were building the bomb. They just had to enter the room, dial knobs back-and-forth for 8-hours/day, and then go home.
Today, that sort of stuff SHOULD be automated. It made sense back then because there weren't computers, but... you really can't just get people to balance knobs 8-hours / day anymore.
-------
EDIT: https://www.energy.gov/articles/five-fast-facts-about-calutr...
Seems like Department of Energy has some historical articles on them too.
By enlisting thousands of young women to watch the knobs and dial buttons.
https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/women-who-buil...
They didn't even know they were building the bomb. They just had to enter the room, dial knobs back-and-forth for 8-hours/day, and then go home.
Today, that sort of stuff SHOULD be automated. It made sense back then because there weren't computers, but... you really can't just get people to balance knobs 8-hours / day anymore.
-------
EDIT: https://www.energy.gov/articles/five-fast-facts-about-calutr...
Seems like Department of Energy has some historical articles on them too.
The youth unemployment rate in Iran is ~25%, overall rate is 10%. They issue their own fiat currency, and their GDP per capita is comparable to Thailand and Botswana.
So yes, they can probably afford to have a bunch of people tweak knobs in a factory all day.
So yes, they can probably afford to have a bunch of people tweak knobs in a factory all day.
There are many options that lie between "network-connected grey-import PLCs from the 90s" and "have a human tweak a knob to zero a needle scale".
> So yes, they can probably afford to have a bunch of people tweak knobs in a factory all day.
But what would prevent this system from being compromised?
Seems pretty easy for an adversary to "inject an exploit in these controllers" by paying a few of them to keep the knobs in the wrong position for a bit more time than strictly necessary, or to flip a switch earlier/later than ideal.
Auditing this is seems worse than checking the code for an old-style, non-networked, PLC.
But what would prevent this system from being compromised?
Seems pretty easy for an adversary to "inject an exploit in these controllers" by paying a few of them to keep the knobs in the wrong position for a bit more time than strictly necessary, or to flip a switch earlier/later than ideal.
Auditing this is seems worse than checking the code for an old-style, non-networked, PLC.
Are you implying that if they were a richer, more prosperous country, then they couldn't afford it? I'm confused
If the job market is more saturated, there’s simply fewer people available to do bullshit work, at the necessary bullshit cost. Resources would be naturally allocated to more valuable efforts, and lured by better wages, by the market. As a general rule, the richer the country, the more expensive humans are, and the commodities become cheaper (relative to income)
In the US, I can’t afford a full time maid. In India, I could probably afford 10.
Or more pointedly, in the US you can afford a car far earlier than you can afford a maid. In India, it’s the opposite.
In the US, I can’t afford a full time maid. In India, I could probably afford 10.
Or more pointedly, in the US you can afford a car far earlier than you can afford a maid. In India, it’s the opposite.
I understand your point, but how does minimum wage for unskilled workers factor? For example, in the US you could pay some $8/hour to 500 teenagers to achieve the same net result. No?
It makes it worse — if the job only makes sense (produces value at least at) $7.50/hr, you simply can’t execute it — even if you had people willing to work at that wage (because no better alternative exists)
An interesting aspect of poorer economy I’ve noted but haven’t seen anyone discuss otherwise is you can live a much better life being poor in India, than you can in the US — the really low income economy is far healthier (the quality of everything degrades continuously). I’m sure it’s not a novel insight, but I don’t know what others would call it.
In the US you pass under the minimum wage bar of value production and you’re immediately in a tent under an LA bridge — with everyone else ranging from $7.99/hr to $0.01/hr. Of course an economy exists to support them anyways, but it’s largely underground, illegal (bypassing safety and regulations, e.g. selling very old cars; selling cigarettes individually) and actively zoned into oblivion
An interesting aspect of poorer economy I’ve noted but haven’t seen anyone discuss otherwise is you can live a much better life being poor in India, than you can in the US — the really low income economy is far healthier (the quality of everything degrades continuously). I’m sure it’s not a novel insight, but I don’t know what others would call it.
In the US you pass under the minimum wage bar of value production and you’re immediately in a tent under an LA bridge — with everyone else ranging from $7.99/hr to $0.01/hr. Of course an economy exists to support them anyways, but it’s largely underground, illegal (bypassing safety and regulations, e.g. selling very old cars; selling cigarettes individually) and actively zoned into oblivion
$8/hr gets pretty expensive pretty quick.
It‘s why, for example, middle class households in the US don‘t have live in maids, because rising living standards made that unaffordable at a middle class income level.
It‘s why, for example, middle class households in the US don‘t have live in maids, because rising living standards made that unaffordable at a middle class income level.
bowmessage(2)
There is also a very deep dissatisfaction towards the government amongst people.
Imagine them hiring dozens of resentful, rebellious teens to watch the dials of their budding nuclear programme. It’s like something from Futurama
> Imagine them hiring dozens of resentful, rebellious teens to watch the dials of their budding nuclear programme. It’s like something from Futurama
So the idea might not work for Iran, but it probably would for North Korea.
So the idea might not work for Iran, but it probably would for North Korea.
Last I had heard, Iran's youth unemployment situation certainly would make that feasible...
>you really can't just get people to balance knobs 8-hours / day anymore
Why not?
Why not?
Today, we've automated that with electronic computer chips, which also don't know the significance of what they're doing computations for.
[deleted]
such an activity would also be a lot harder to hide today with eyes in space capturing everything in high-res
Also, mass tracking through mobile devices. Even if said devices are in faraday cages, it doesn't take a genius to see that something exists in some area when there are many devices going dark and then coming back up again after some hours. It only takes access to cellphone towers and data.
still impressive secrecy management
But still not good enough.
Legend has it that Stalin knew about the American bomb before Truman knew about it. Hiring literally thousands of high-schoolers without much job training has the advantages of being cheap back then, but you don't really know who was or wasn't a Soviet Agent.
Similarly: having literally thousands of modern techs build a bomb manually would only turn the computer-security problem into a human-security problem. Who do you trust? Who do you keep track of?
There's something to be said about trusting fewer people: and checking those few people more vigorously. That simplifies the human-security portion of the puzzle, even if it complicates the computer-security portion.
Legend has it that Stalin knew about the American bomb before Truman knew about it. Hiring literally thousands of high-schoolers without much job training has the advantages of being cheap back then, but you don't really know who was or wasn't a Soviet Agent.
Similarly: having literally thousands of modern techs build a bomb manually would only turn the computer-security problem into a human-security problem. Who do you trust? Who do you keep track of?
There's something to be said about trusting fewer people: and checking those few people more vigorously. That simplifies the human-security portion of the puzzle, even if it complicates the computer-security portion.
That's what I was curious about. Indeed the more persons the more leaks potentially, yet it seems that they took care of dilluting knowledge so nobody really knew what was for. I'd love to read about the soviet side of this story.
Not without scheduled Instagram breaks you won't.
These are bold words coming from someone browsing HN during work hours (making massive timezone/ work schedule assumptions).
could just be speaking from experience, on their scheduled HN break
I don’t know, with a good pair of headphones and podcasts, it could be tolerable
It seems that there's also some lack of defense-in-depth going on - if the centrifuges need power to power down, why isn't that built into each one?
It's interesting that the Manhattan project had to build everything themselves - which if Iran was NOT using off-the-shelf parts and instead was developing everything in-house they'd be less susceptible to certain types of attacks.
It's interesting that the Manhattan project had to build everything themselves - which if Iran was NOT using off-the-shelf parts and instead was developing everything in-house they'd be less susceptible to certain types of attacks.
> and instead was developing everything in-house
This article says they used air-gapped Siemens industrial control systems:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/revealed-how-a-secret-du...
This article says they used air-gapped Siemens industrial control systems:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/revealed-how-a-secret-du...
My understanding is that Iran needs high performance centrifuges to enrich Uranium as they do not have an abundance of the stuff, unlike the Manhattan Project. They were able to pile up 50 tons of uranium and light up a lightbulb while other experiments were carried out in parallel to enrich uranium and synthesize plutonium.
I used to work at a small company that manufactured medical equipment.
One of the products we made was a pick-and place robot that handled urine samples.
It needed a coordinated 3-axis motor servo motor control, which we initially planned to use PLCs for, however after looking around and seeing the price tag of the stuff that matched our required feature set, we decided to build our own. We were up and running within 2 months, and I can tell you, writing code in C for the control loops is infinitely preferable to whatever monstrosity PLCs can be programmed in. I'd say this is a much more complex scenario than running a single motor at a certain speed depending on some sensor readings.
It needed a coordinated 3-axis motor servo motor control, which we initially planned to use PLCs for, however after looking around and seeing the price tag of the stuff that matched our required feature set, we decided to build our own. We were up and running within 2 months, and I can tell you, writing code in C for the control loops is infinitely preferable to whatever monstrosity PLCs can be programmed in. I'd say this is a much more complex scenario than running a single motor at a certain speed depending on some sensor readings.
In a lot of conflicts today the Kalashnikov is the highest tech used in combat so these simple systems are more the rule than the exception.
High tech combat gear with VR and exoskeletons is more of a gun dealer's wet dream(e.g. costs a ton, breaks often) than anything that usually gets deployed.
High tech combat gear with VR and exoskeletons is more of a gun dealer's wet dream(e.g. costs a ton, breaks often) than anything that usually gets deployed.
The Kalashnikov looks low tech because it was designed to be cheap to manufacture but I'd argue the AK is one of the technical milestones in the 20th century on par with the assembly line (as horrible as the effects have been). It's carefully designed to operate reliably despite crappy manufacturing and ammunition tolerances after taking a beating in the field, made using whatever crappy metal is available for the receiver and barrel.
This sounds like how the Galactica survived in the 2003 BSG reboot. All of the critical systems (fire control, navigation, life support, etc.) were standalone & not networked. The baddies took out all of the new ships & defense networks with a computer virus, and the old Galactica couldn’t be hacked that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_(fictiona...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_(fictiona...
What does it even mean to “not be networked” and on a Galactic spaceship?
I can imagine all of those systems need to communicate within their domain somehow, so they need to be connected. You could make a point that they have “not been connected to the internet”, but then it only takes one node to become a bridge between WAN and LAN and you are Pwned.
It’s even worse now because there’s a tendency in software development to discount security this way: “we don’t need to think about security because we have a firewall”.
I don’t think this is a valid scenario.
I can imagine all of those systems need to communicate within their domain somehow, so they need to be connected. You could make a point that they have “not been connected to the internet”, but then it only takes one node to become a bridge between WAN and LAN and you are Pwned.
It’s even worse now because there’s a tendency in software development to discount security this way: “we don’t need to think about security because we have a firewall”.
I don’t think this is a valid scenario.
I always took it to mean fixed purpose control signals rather than sitting on a common bus.
It takes only one buffer overflow within a fixed purpose control signal handler to convert any bus into a general purpose bus.
No buses, only fixed purpose control signals.
It's pretty hard to buffer overflow
It's pretty hard to buffer overflow
if (read_gpio(Ignition_Enable_Pin)) {But if that GPIO triggers an interrupt, you might be able to get the processor to do interesting things by oscillating the signal faster than the processor can disable interrupts and run the ISR.
That's almost always explicitly handled for line glitch reasons.
Haven't there been mod chips for consoles that worked by glitching the lines at just the right time?
The one I know of that glitched lines at the right time (the xbox 360 reset glitch hack modchips) worked by glitching the reset line at the right time via a CPLD that had been attached in such a way as to bypass the analog filtering.
I agree that this scheme doesn't protect against hardware implants modifying lines, but the threat model discussed thus far was around propagation of software implants throughout a system.
I agree that this scheme doesn't protect against hardware implants modifying lines, but the threat model discussed thus far was around propagation of software implants throughout a system.
They're talking about a TV show[1], where one early episode revolved around the fact that they had avoided connecting the computers to keep the bad guys out. (Sorry if I'm telling you something you already knew; the question you started with made it unclear.)
The show created an aesthetic like an old submarine, even using set pieces salvaged from other submarine movies. That was an aesthetic choice, making everything look cluttered and cramped and slow, increasing tension in exactly the way old submarine movies used to. In those movies, the computers weren't connected because they didn't exist. Actions were coordinated by phone.
It's a bit contrived that they had computers but not networks. It was just a conceit of the show, and actually it was really mostly just in that one episode. But the aesthetic carried through and made for great atmosphere.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_...
The show created an aesthetic like an old submarine, even using set pieces salvaged from other submarine movies. That was an aesthetic choice, making everything look cluttered and cramped and slow, increasing tension in exactly the way old submarine movies used to. In those movies, the computers weren't connected because they didn't exist. Actions were coordinated by phone.
It's a bit contrived that they had computers but not networks. It was just a conceit of the show, and actually it was really mostly just in that one episode. But the aesthetic carried through and made for great atmosphere.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_...
I think the various ship subsystems were isolated and they used analog voice telephones to request various ship operations from crew in those sub areas.
The problem is that many Iranians do not agree with the current government or the revolutionary guard. Some of them have access to key infrastructures such as the building that contains the centrifuges.
Reverting to old methods might not work so well when you face that situation.
Reverting to old methods might not work so well when you face that situation.
I think it would be easier to own the stack. Don't use third party network equipment. Formally verify every layer of the stack. In the end this is probably cheaper then going back to computerless.
https://collapseos.org/
(i'm not affiliated with this project in any way)
You can have low powered processors running the show, it's probably very feasible. Or even analog control is doable.
"Kids these days etc."
"Kids these days etc."
This is the equivalent of: let's not use a frontend/backend framework in our next project ;)
[deleted]
Analog is the future. Steampunk nuke ops.
There is truth in this comment.
Parts of the Russian government have reverted to using mechanical typewriters in lieu of computers, which are too susceptible to malicious hacking.
Also, the US Navy started instructing enlisted seamen how to navigate at sea by the stars, in case GPS stops working.
Parts of the Russian government have reverted to using mechanical typewriters in lieu of computers, which are too susceptible to malicious hacking.
Also, the US Navy started instructing enlisted seamen how to navigate at sea by the stars, in case GPS stops working.
> Also, the US Navy started instructing enlisted seamen how to navigate at sea by the stars, in case GPS stops working.
Is the threat model there that someone hacks the GPS signal, or that someone shoots down the GPS satellites? Lots of countries have ASATs these days.
Is the threat model there that someone hacks the GPS signal, or that someone shoots down the GPS satellites? Lots of countries have ASATs these days.
But then again the Russians themselves famously placed very difficult to detect bugs in the mechanical typewriters of the American embassy.
And the Americans put one in the Soviet embassy’s Xerox machine.
I think a potential lesson of the story is to use technology that you understand at least as well as your enemy does. The communist bloc maintained registries of typewriter fingerprints so they could identify which typewriters were used to reproduce samizdat; I think it’s fair to assume that the Russians understand typewriters very well.
I think a potential lesson of the story is to use technology that you understand at least as well as your enemy does. The communist bloc maintained registries of typewriter fingerprints so they could identify which typewriters were used to reproduce samizdat; I think it’s fair to assume that the Russians understand typewriters very well.
Sorry for the pedestrian comment, but,
watching the cyberwars happening is surreal. Nuclear material production being attacked by Stuxnet, this current event, others I'm sure, is amazing.
The cyberwars of disinformation as well - completely surreal to see this all play out. Sorry I don't have more to add. It's hard to describe how it feels to see the future arrive like this. Pandemic. Rocket milestones, Mars plans. Nuclear-targeted cyberwar. Cryptocurrency. And flying cars are seemingly coming before self-driving cars perhaps. (Edit: And all backed by an increasingly divided America.)
What a weird twist into the future the last few years have been.
watching the cyberwars happening is surreal. Nuclear material production being attacked by Stuxnet, this current event, others I'm sure, is amazing.
The cyberwars of disinformation as well - completely surreal to see this all play out. Sorry I don't have more to add. It's hard to describe how it feels to see the future arrive like this. Pandemic. Rocket milestones, Mars plans. Nuclear-targeted cyberwar. Cryptocurrency. And flying cars are seemingly coming before self-driving cars perhaps. (Edit: And all backed by an increasingly divided America.)
What a weird twist into the future the last few years have been.
Just the other day i was watching a video of protestors taking down a drone with hundreds of laser pointers. People are literally having laser battles in the streets with police robots.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=drone+lasers+protestors&t=fpas&iar...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=drone+lasers+protestors&t=fpas&iar...
Why does this work?
My assumption is that people have cheap high power ~50 mw rated green laser pointers of questionable origin. The green is generated by optical pumping with an IR laser. Unscrupulous manufacturers omit an IR filter, allowing the much more powerful IR beam to also pass. This is problematic because the laser eye protection you're supposed to buy to match the green wavelength wont protect your eyes from this. Anyway given the number of beams it seems like there could conceivably be enough power delivered to overheat or damage something.
I think most drones wouldn't be 'taken down' by lasers: flight control and GPS should still work fine. But seems reasonable that enough lasers could blind the camera, eliminating it as a surveillance asset.
I knew someone with plans to protest traffic ticket cameras by aiming a directional photocell at the flash and wiring it to activate a laser aimed at the camera for a few seconds. I wonder if they ever got around to it.
Low tech alternative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRnlRurTwFg
Too much of a dystopia for my taste. I wish that we had solved climate change, stopped a few useless wars, and fixed a big part of the cronic health problems.
We are much better than a hundred years ago, but we have much more to improve.
Information Technologies have been weaponized, but not hardened, if that makes any sense. A lot of soft targets and heavy ordinance, not so many fortresses.
Micheal Hayden during a Blackhat keynote likened 'cyber' to a new domain (like air, land, sea), that's universally like early WWI with open fields of men with no defenses being mowed down by attackers' machine guns.
As an aside, it probably would have been smarter to make Cyber Command it's own branch rather than the Space Force. Space operations are basically figured out with the Air Force taking most of the lead. Cyber Command is apparently a cluster fuck of separate command structures all vying for power. Spending the time making a Space Force always seemed like a 20th century move in a 21st century env.
As an aside, it probably would have been smarter to make Cyber Command it's own branch rather than the Space Force. Space operations are basically figured out with the Air Force taking most of the lead. Cyber Command is apparently a cluster fuck of separate command structures all vying for power. Spending the time making a Space Force always seemed like a 20th century move in a 21st century env.
Yeah, it feels like the "golden age" in some way - there's lots of developments available on both sides.
I expect things will "calm down" over the next fifty years as defense-in-depth and security become ingrained into how we work. Compare a "modern network" with the first ARPANET.
I expect things will "calm down" over the next fifty years as defense-in-depth and security become ingrained into how we work. Compare a "modern network" with the first ARPANET.
all the possible scenarios that may happen are playing out equally and in parallel. I think it is part of everyone living different realities and we no longer share (e.g. we are all lonely and isolated). those who haven't been radicalized until now will be so in the future[0]. I think the outcome depends on how _much_ and hard we're squeezed. But everyone eventually falls over the edge. Our reaction to how we deal with it also depends on the individual (directing violence against ourselves e.g. depression or violence against others - e.g. mobbing). Adam Curtis made a fantastic documentary[1] earlier this year on how we got here. It had mixed reviews here on HN
[0] "The future is already here — It's just not very evenly distributed" -- William Gibson
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I9nquHUE0Y&list=PLtPP_-rkrT...
[0] "The future is already here — It's just not very evenly distributed" -- William Gibson
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I9nquHUE0Y&list=PLtPP_-rkrT...
The fiction-to-reality pipeline is getting scary fast!
I'm with you on all of the things except for flying cars. I don't want some drunk driver(pilot?) flying over my house, but I want to be able to land at home. There are twice as many regulatory issues as tech challenges in my book.
I'm with you on all of the things except for flying cars. I don't want some drunk driver(pilot?) flying over my house, but I want to be able to land at home. There are twice as many regulatory issues as tech challenges in my book.
"cyberwar" soften what may be a far worse situation. We may be witnessing the ignition -in slow-motion- of a generation defining global armed conflict. When it all finally goes hot nobody will remember how it started.
> it appears the facility’s main power distribution equipment was taken out with explosives
How do the Israelis keep managing to get explosives into Natanz? They blew up a hall last July. I would have thought everyone entering the premises goes through a body scanner like an airport to make sure you're not carrying bombs, spy cameras, etc.
How do the Israelis keep managing to get explosives into Natanz? They blew up a hall last July. I would have thought everyone entering the premises goes through a body scanner like an airport to make sure you're not carrying bombs, spy cameras, etc.
Right?! Sorry for the empty comment, but I'm fascinated to know this is happening. If there's one place that bombs are unwelcome, it'd be a nuclear facility.
One also wonders whether an Israeli planted the bomb, or an Iranian. You'd have to be pretty daring either way.
One also wonders whether an Israeli planted the bomb, or an Iranian. You'd have to be pretty daring either way.
I'm guessing an Iranian. From articles I've read, it sounds like Mossad has a huge network of ethnic Iranian agents carrying out the ground work in Iran. This stuff is fascinating indeed.
Here's a good read for you: https://archive.ph/uG9Lu
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/iran-israel-m...
How Israel, in Dark of Night, Torched Its Way to Iran’s Nuclear Secrets
> The Mossad agents moving in on a warehouse in a drab commercial district of Tehran knew exactly how much time they had to disable the alarms, break through two doors, cut through dozens of giant safes and get out of the city with a half-ton of secret materials: six hours and 29 minutes.
> The morning shift of Iranian guards would arrive around 7 a.m., a year of surveillance of the warehouse by the Israeli spy agency had revealed, and the agents were under orders to leave before 5 a.m. to have enough time to escape. Once the Iranian custodians arrived, it would be instantly clear that someone had stolen much of the country’s clandestine nuclear archive, documenting years of work on atomic weapons, warhead designs and production plans.
> The agents arrived that night, Jan. 31, with torches that burned at least 3,600 degrees, hot enough, as they knew from intelligence collected during the planning of the operation, to cut through the 32 Iranian-made safes. But they left many untouched, going first for the ones containing the black binders, which contained the most critical designs. When time was up, they fled for the border, hauling some 50,000 pages and 163 compact discs of memos, videos and plans.
...
> In most Mossad operations, spies aim to penetrate a facility and photograph or copy material without traces. But in this case, the Mossad chief, Yossi Cohen, ordered that the material be stolen outright. That would drastically shorten the time that the agents — many, if not all, of them Iranians — spent inside the building. (continued in the article)
Here's a good read for you: https://archive.ph/uG9Lu
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/iran-israel-m...
How Israel, in Dark of Night, Torched Its Way to Iran’s Nuclear Secrets
> The Mossad agents moving in on a warehouse in a drab commercial district of Tehran knew exactly how much time they had to disable the alarms, break through two doors, cut through dozens of giant safes and get out of the city with a half-ton of secret materials: six hours and 29 minutes.
> The morning shift of Iranian guards would arrive around 7 a.m., a year of surveillance of the warehouse by the Israeli spy agency had revealed, and the agents were under orders to leave before 5 a.m. to have enough time to escape. Once the Iranian custodians arrived, it would be instantly clear that someone had stolen much of the country’s clandestine nuclear archive, documenting years of work on atomic weapons, warhead designs and production plans.
> The agents arrived that night, Jan. 31, with torches that burned at least 3,600 degrees, hot enough, as they knew from intelligence collected during the planning of the operation, to cut through the 32 Iranian-made safes. But they left many untouched, going first for the ones containing the black binders, which contained the most critical designs. When time was up, they fled for the border, hauling some 50,000 pages and 163 compact discs of memos, videos and plans.
...
> In most Mossad operations, spies aim to penetrate a facility and photograph or copy material without traces. But in this case, the Mossad chief, Yossi Cohen, ordered that the material be stolen outright. That would drastically shorten the time that the agents — many, if not all, of them Iranians — spent inside the building. (continued in the article)
Thanks so much! I was just reading https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/revealed-how-a-secret-du... which says the same thing: an Iranian mole was crucial for Stuxnet, smuggling a USB stick into the airgapped facility.
I wonder what the calculus is like on whether to be an Iranian mole. Either the Israelis were blackmailing them into cooperating, or they're offering some very lucrative rewards, or the Iranian is doing it for some other reason (e.g. personal beliefs, or maybe just "being a super{hero,villain} for fun".)
I wonder what the calculus is like on whether to be an Iranian mole. Either the Israelis were blackmailing them into cooperating, or they're offering some very lucrative rewards, or the Iranian is doing it for some other reason (e.g. personal beliefs, or maybe just "being a super{hero,villain} for fun".)
The US, at least, is very good at cultivating a lot of HUMINT just by offering massive rewards &/or relocation+citizenship for your family.
I imagine a combo of all of those reasons would be effective in convincing them to become agents. Like "hey, you can work for us, and we'll exfiltrate you and your family anytime you want and give you a great retirement package...or you can risk ending up like one of those nuclear scientists..." and they probably target the non-hardliner people.
[deleted]
You suborn the whole chain. Instead of one guy, you bribe or threaten the guy at the front gate, the guy who runs the metal detector, the guy who monitors the video cameras. Afterwards you exfiltrate them from the country to some third nation. (Or you don't, and instead do something less nice.)
I don't know the answer to your question, but if you're interested in this topic I highly recommend Rise and Kill First by Ronen Bergman. Very well-sourced and readable account of Israeli spycraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_Kill_First
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_Kill_First
People that don't have a clue are kept in positions of authority. The Keystone Cops did a reenactment of Iranian security 100 years ago.
Say what you will, but being able to smuggle a bomb into a heavily fortified military installation is pro. I'd give a lot for a peek at that world: the planning, the logistics, the people. They probably have one of the most sophisticated spy networks in the world.
> To mark the event and send a message to its negotiating partners, technicians at Natanz began to operate a small batch of IR-6 centrifuges as well. The majority of centrifuges at Natanz are a model known as IR-1, which is much less efficient at enriching uranium than the IR-6 design. The nuclear agreement signed with Iran in 2015 (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) limited it to using only IR-1 centrifuges, so the installation of the IR-6s is widely seen as a provocation designed to give Iran leverage in the revived talks. To add to the tension, Iran has been enriching uranium gas to 20 percent since the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement two years ago. Prior to this, it was enriching uranium to 3 to 5 percent. The higher levels put Iran closer to the 90 percent enrichment that is needed for nuclear weapons, all of which raises the stakes for Israel.
Why should anyone believe they are pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program when they do things like this? Surely the best way to convince people you are the peaceful victim is to continue to demonstrate peaceful intentions even when others don't reward you for it.
Why should anyone believe they are pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program when they do things like this? Surely the best way to convince people you are the peaceful victim is to continue to demonstrate peaceful intentions even when others don't reward you for it.
They probably want 1 bomb so they can join the elite group of countries that make big decisions at the UN.
Leverage for the next JCPOA.
Could you elaborate on what kind of leverage this gives them? Does anyone doubt they had the capability to employ more efficient centrifuges and enrich uranium beyond 20% prior to this. How does choosing to actually do those things benefit them in negotiations?
If the criminal in a hostage situation starts shooting their hostages, does that give them leverage in negotiations? I would think it just devalues their hostages and gives the police more incentive to shoot before things get worse.
If the criminal in a hostage situation starts shooting their hostages, does that give them leverage in negotiations? I would think it just devalues their hostages and gives the police more incentive to shoot before things get worse.
In this case the prev-police broke a promise with the criminal, while the criminals held other VVIP hostages. Current police hates the prev-police , but thats fait accompli.
In addition unlike irreversible killings, they can freeze high enrichment as leverage. Of course both party must let IAEA do the works.
In addition unlike irreversible killings, they can freeze high enrichment as leverage. Of course both party must let IAEA do the works.
Trump violated the JCPOA first. Why should Iran hold up their side of a broken agreement? The JCPOA was working fine but Netanyahu didn't like it because he wants to destabilize Iran.
> Why should Iran hold up their side of a broken agreement?
Because - and correct me if I'm misunderstanding things - so far as I can tell it wasn't really an "agreement" to begin with. The US essentially just said they would tolerate an Iranian nuclear program so long as it adhered to a set of guidelines which assured Iran was being honest about their goal of pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program. The US was providing Iran an incentive to keep its word.
For better or for worse, that incentive was removed. But that doesn't mean Iran is incentivized to go against its word. Continuing to adhere to those guidelines would help build trust from the rest of the world that Iran really just wanted a nuclear energy program. Instead, their recent actions only continue to build distrust.
Because - and correct me if I'm misunderstanding things - so far as I can tell it wasn't really an "agreement" to begin with. The US essentially just said they would tolerate an Iranian nuclear program so long as it adhered to a set of guidelines which assured Iran was being honest about their goal of pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program. The US was providing Iran an incentive to keep its word.
For better or for worse, that incentive was removed. But that doesn't mean Iran is incentivized to go against its word. Continuing to adhere to those guidelines would help build trust from the rest of the world that Iran really just wanted a nuclear energy program. Instead, their recent actions only continue to build distrust.
>Because - and correct me if I'm misunderstanding things - so far as I can tell it wasn't really an "agreement" to begin with.
Your somewhat understanding things. It definitely was an agreement, passed by the UN, the EU, and thus somewhat the US.
The disagreement is whether a congressional vote is necessary as well, which most UN agreements don't require but allow for congress to vote against them. There weren't enough senators against the agreement for that to happen, but because there weren't enough to vote in favor of it either Trump's team argued it wasn't an official treaty.
So whether it was an official agreement is somewhat unclear, but your description that it was an ad-hoc trust building exercise is not correct.
Your somewhat understanding things. It definitely was an agreement, passed by the UN, the EU, and thus somewhat the US.
The disagreement is whether a congressional vote is necessary as well, which most UN agreements don't require but allow for congress to vote against them. There weren't enough senators against the agreement for that to happen, but because there weren't enough to vote in favor of it either Trump's team argued it wasn't an official treaty.
So whether it was an official agreement is somewhat unclear, but your description that it was an ad-hoc trust building exercise is not correct.
What are they doing with 60%? It is more than you need for a PWR and much less than you need for a weapon.
This has a very uncanny resemblance to the Apple TV show Tehran.
Twist: all of this was a very expensive Apple TV ad!
In all seriousness, if what you say it's true it really makes me want to watch Tehran.
In all seriousness, if what you say it's true it really makes me want to watch Tehran.
So who takes responsibility when one of these attacks results in a meltdown?
And why does Iran not have the right to build their own atomic bomb when the US, Russia or China have them and are building new ones?
We ALL should be reducing nuclear weapons including the US. But sadly the US has not been taking a leadership role recently
Edit: Nice to see that my global nuclear disarmament comment is getting downvoted. /s
And why does Iran not have the right to build their own atomic bomb when the US, Russia or China have them and are building new ones?
We ALL should be reducing nuclear weapons including the US. But sadly the US has not been taking a leadership role recently
Edit: Nice to see that my global nuclear disarmament comment is getting downvoted. /s
Iran is a theocracy that has stated multiple times a desire to "Wipe X off the face of the earth", where X is another country / race / religion.
Only one of the countries out of Israel and Iran have nukes, a superpower as benefactor, and lobby continuously for an invasion by that benefactor, an invasion that would kill hundreds of thousands. Not to mention the sanctions that are reshaping an entire society.
[deleted]
Is Israel that much different? It seems like if you're committed to empowering all BIPOC you would not restrict their access to the weaponry needed to defend their homelands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Is this some kind of a bad joke? Because some countries have BIPOC if they want nukes to not hinder their empowerment nobody should intervene.
If all the countries in MENA have nukes, this would be terrible for everybody, it would exponentially rise the risk of nuclear warheads being used.
Is there an impartial standard that we could use in determining which countries we should allow to have nukes?
Why should the US allow Israel to have nukes when we spend so much energy preventing Iran from doing the same?
Why should the US allow Israel to have nukes when we spend so much energy preventing Iran from doing the same?
Israel is not governed by religious law, and has full rights for women, minorities, and LGBTQ. Its basis for most policy is a blend of social democracy and neoliberalism. Its military is purely defensive. I cannot say any of those things about Iran in good faith.
Also, the what-about-ism is not a great defense of anything geopolitical btw.
Also, the what-about-ism is not a great defense of anything geopolitical btw.
Not governed by religious law? 9000 Israelis get married in neighbouring countries each year because their relationship wouldn't satisfy the Orthodox rabbis who run the show. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel
Are ethnic minorities extended the "right of return" in Israel? Last I checked this was not the case.
What do you mean? Can a Senegalese become a citizen of the USA (or of almost any country on Earth) without a lengthy naturalization? If not, is the USA discriminatory.
Of course the right of return is just for Jews. Every country gets to set its own rules for citizenship. But Israeli citizens enjoy a reasonable democracy, with advanced civil rights, and respect human rights of others, too. Of course not at 100% but way better then all of their neighbors
Of course the right of return is just for Jews. Every country gets to set its own rules for citizenship. But Israeli citizens enjoy a reasonable democracy, with advanced civil rights, and respect human rights of others, too. Of course not at 100% but way better then all of their neighbors
The United States doesn't grant you privileges for being a Christian or being white. The United States doesn't label itself as a "white country."
Israel grants privileges for being Jewish and denies citizenship if you are from Palestine.
Israel grants privileges for being Jewish and denies citizenship if you are from Palestine.
Think of judaism as ethnicity. You can be an atheist jew and be granted Israeli citizenship. Israel is the historic homeland of the jewish culture/people.
I'd liken it to something like Country X giving special immigration privileges if you have ancestry from country X.
They don't deny citizenship if you're palestinian, granted it's as difficult if you were trying to get citizenship coming from any other country
I'd liken it to something like Country X giving special immigration privileges if you have ancestry from country X.
They don't deny citizenship if you're palestinian, granted it's as difficult if you were trying to get citizenship coming from any other country
I have a solid conception of judaism, I've lived in places with thriving jewish communities my entire life, and am sephardic-descended myself.
> it's as difficult if you were trying to get citizenship coming from any other country
Nope, it's more so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Isr...
In general, I am opposed to ethnostates and granting nationality based on what bloodline you come from. I think it is ironic that there is a right of "return" for Jewish people, but no such right of return for people who were displaced during the Nakba.
> it's as difficult if you were trying to get citizenship coming from any other country
Nope, it's more so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Isr...
In general, I am opposed to ethnostates and granting nationality based on what bloodline you come from. I think it is ironic that there is a right of "return" for Jewish people, but no such right of return for people who were displaced during the Nakba.
(For context, I'm a Jewish Israeli)
I'll be honest - I'm also opposed to "ethnostates" in general, and would much prefer the world moved beyond looking at each other based on ethnicity.
But given the fact that Israel was kind of explicitly created because the world hasn't moved past looking at ethnicity, I'm not sure what my solution is. I'm an Israeli Jew - I know that if Israel wouldn't exist, my life would be far more dangerous. And that's not a hypothetical - a huge chunk of my family were murdered for no other reason than being Jewish. The only guarantee I have that this won't happen again is that there is a strong Jewish state.
Do I like that the world is like this? No! Not at all. But that's the way the world is. And considering that most other groups do have effectively their own countries, I don't see a reason that Jews shouldn't also have their own country.
(This is all talking about the concept of an "ethnostate" in specific, not getting into the question of whether Israel being founded in the location it is was wrong in the first place - the arguments above would work just as well if Israel had been founded anywhere else.)
I'll be honest - I'm also opposed to "ethnostates" in general, and would much prefer the world moved beyond looking at each other based on ethnicity.
But given the fact that Israel was kind of explicitly created because the world hasn't moved past looking at ethnicity, I'm not sure what my solution is. I'm an Israeli Jew - I know that if Israel wouldn't exist, my life would be far more dangerous. And that's not a hypothetical - a huge chunk of my family were murdered for no other reason than being Jewish. The only guarantee I have that this won't happen again is that there is a strong Jewish state.
Do I like that the world is like this? No! Not at all. But that's the way the world is. And considering that most other groups do have effectively their own countries, I don't see a reason that Jews shouldn't also have their own country.
(This is all talking about the concept of an "ethnostate" in specific, not getting into the question of whether Israel being founded in the location it is was wrong in the first place - the arguments above would work just as well if Israel had been founded anywhere else.)
Yes, if they convert to Judaism. Seems reasonable, Judaism doesn't ban any ethnic minorities.
Sorry, what was this about "not being governed by religious law"?
> full rights for women, minorities, and LGBTQ
So not full rights for religious minorities. Moreover, conversion is quite difficult and the process is made much easier if you have a parent who is Jewish (which generally forms an ethnic group). Only recently were non-Orthodox conversions recognized for this purpose: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/world/middleeast/israel-j...
Also, if you are from Palestine or Iran, you are excluded from citizenship via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Isr...
ie. specifically on the basis of your ethnicity &/or national origin.
I find it hard to take seriously claims of equal & full rights for minorities when those rights require converting to a different religion or being of a different ethnicity in order to apply to you.
> full rights for women, minorities, and LGBTQ
So not full rights for religious minorities. Moreover, conversion is quite difficult and the process is made much easier if you have a parent who is Jewish (which generally forms an ethnic group). Only recently were non-Orthodox conversions recognized for this purpose: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/world/middleeast/israel-j...
Also, if you are from Palestine or Iran, you are excluded from citizenship via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Isr...
ie. specifically on the basis of your ethnicity &/or national origin.
I find it hard to take seriously claims of equal & full rights for minorities when those rights require converting to a different religion or being of a different ethnicity in order to apply to you.
It's important for people to understand that Judaism is a minority religion that has been historically persecuted. There is nothing wrong with working to preserve the tradition and culture, and if it ends in a small amount of ethnic homogeneity then it has to be accepted as necessary, especially since "Jewish" is both a religion and an ethnicity, so in the current historical context failing to preserve Judaism means failing to preserve Jews.
Empowering BIPOC isn't about expecting all the same things. It's about giving BIPOC the resources they need for their ethnic and cultural self-determination.
Empowering BIPOC isn't about expecting all the same things. It's about giving BIPOC the resources they need for their ethnic and cultural self-determination.
How does denying citizenship to minorities help preserve Jewish culture? I'm glad you've backed away from the "equal rights for all rhetoric" though.
It's too bad Afrikaners didn't try harder to "preserve the traditional and culture" of minority rule in South Africa as well.
Historical persecution doesn't justify enthnostates in my mind, I didn't realize this was a controversial opinion.
e: Since you've now edited your comment to include the statement about "BIPOC", Jewishness is orthogonal to "BIPOC" and most Jewish people are white.
I say that as someone of Sephardic descent.
It's too bad Afrikaners didn't try harder to "preserve the traditional and culture" of minority rule in South Africa as well.
Historical persecution doesn't justify enthnostates in my mind, I didn't realize this was a controversial opinion.
e: Since you've now edited your comment to include the statement about "BIPOC", Jewishness is orthogonal to "BIPOC" and most Jewish people are white.
I say that as someone of Sephardic descent.
[deleted]
> There is nothing wrong with working to preserve the tradition and culture, and if it ends in a small amount of ethnic homogeneity then it has to be accepted as necessary
"a small amount of ethnic homogeneity" seems like a deliberate minimization.
Israel is an apartheid state that has been persecuting based on ethnicity and religion for decades.
"a small amount of ethnic homogeneity" seems like a deliberate minimization.
Israel is an apartheid state that has been persecuting based on ethnicity and religion for decades.
That's actually not as clear as you might think.
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/10/15/...
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/10/15/...
What do you think would happen if the US and all of Europe completely pulled out of the Middle East? Would Israel stay the size it is now? If not, can you really say it's "purely defensive"?
I am not sure what you are implying. Can you elaborate? Are you saying Israel would go attack its neighbors and seize land? From Egypt? Jordan? Lebanon? If so, that's an absurd proposition with absolutely no geopolitical data points to back it.
I don't think it's too absurd to imply that a country would expand into weaker neighboring countries if it could. One example where the US has intervened is Egypt -- without the US the Sinai Peninsula would surely be part of Israel right now. So yes I'd say it would seize land from Egypt, as it already has.
[deleted]
If the US and Europe pulled out of the Middle East it would be too chaotic to predict anything. It depends on the presence of other superpowers (Russia, China) and the pecking order that would be established between the regional powers (Turkey, Israel, Iran, Egypt + the Sunni world).
Also, "pulling out" is too simplistic. There are not only troops on the ground, but also military bases, joint exercises, weapon sales, commercial ties, industrial ties, scientific collaborations, cultural influences, and so on and so forth. Short of disappearing from the globe the US cannot just 'pull out'
Also, "pulling out" is too simplistic. There are not only troops on the ground, but also military bases, joint exercises, weapon sales, commercial ties, industrial ties, scientific collaborations, cultural influences, and so on and so forth. Short of disappearing from the globe the US cannot just 'pull out'
There's no such a thing as "rights" in international affairs. International relationships are not managed by what's right or wrong, but according to countries' interests and needs.
Now, under this paradigm, we as the free world have to ask ourselves - is it of our interest that Iran will gain access to nuclear weapons? The answer is absolutely no.
Now, under this paradigm, we as the free world have to ask ourselves - is it of our interest that Iran will gain access to nuclear weapons? The answer is absolutely no.
Would you please elaborate why? It's not very clear to me.
I assume you are asking why Iran shouldn't have nuc. weapons.
A detailed answered would require several pages, but in short - Iran and the west have opposing views and conflicting interests. The western interests would be put in compromise if Iran gains such a leverage.
As a theocratic regime, Iran has been actively exporting it's shiite fundamentalist ideology by force (from Yemen to Lebanon and even some non-muslim countries in South America). It would be naive to think that Iran will stop there.
For example, just imagine what would happen if a nuclear Iran invades Saudi Arabia and take over its oil fields.
Or if a nuclear Iran decided to block the Suez canal, effectively cutting off all of Europe from China, India and Japan.
They don't have to use nuclear weapons to inflict damage upon the west.
A detailed answered would require several pages, but in short - Iran and the west have opposing views and conflicting interests. The western interests would be put in compromise if Iran gains such a leverage.
As a theocratic regime, Iran has been actively exporting it's shiite fundamentalist ideology by force (from Yemen to Lebanon and even some non-muslim countries in South America). It would be naive to think that Iran will stop there.
For example, just imagine what would happen if a nuclear Iran invades Saudi Arabia and take over its oil fields.
Or if a nuclear Iran decided to block the Suez canal, effectively cutting off all of Europe from China, India and Japan.
They don't have to use nuclear weapons to inflict damage upon the west.
> But sadly the US has not been taking a leadership role recently.
I'd wager the US will dismantle it's nuclear weapons the day other nations stop seeking to produce nuclear weapons. ie, this will never happen.
The US, China, Russia, India, UK, etc having nuclear weapons is a lot less of a threat to global security than a nation-state such as Iran, which vows to destroy it's surrounding nations every chance it gets.
The history of humans has been rife with armed conflict. It's an anomaly that the last 70 years have not seen massive global armed conflict, particularly in the "digital age". Perhaps nations that have nuclear weapons, but don't desire to use them are the reason? Perhaps not... but what is certain is Iran has stated they intend to use nuclear weapons, and that's not ok by anyone.
I'd wager the US will dismantle it's nuclear weapons the day other nations stop seeking to produce nuclear weapons. ie, this will never happen.
The US, China, Russia, India, UK, etc having nuclear weapons is a lot less of a threat to global security than a nation-state such as Iran, which vows to destroy it's surrounding nations every chance it gets.
The history of humans has been rife with armed conflict. It's an anomaly that the last 70 years have not seen massive global armed conflict, particularly in the "digital age". Perhaps nations that have nuclear weapons, but don't desire to use them are the reason? Perhaps not... but what is certain is Iran has stated they intend to use nuclear weapons, and that's not ok by anyone.
Iran is a large nation of millions of people with a relatively developed government (even if we don't like the way it is currently structured).
I doubt they would initiate a nuclear strike, knowing it means their annihilation.
Also, most modern statements by Iran focus on the "Zionist regime", not the literal killing of the residents of Israel. You can find similar rhetoric in the United States about the CCP.
> what is certain is Iran has stated they intend to use nuclear weapons
Is that certain? When have they said that?
I doubt they would initiate a nuclear strike, knowing it means their annihilation.
Also, most modern statements by Iran focus on the "Zionist regime", not the literal killing of the residents of Israel. You can find similar rhetoric in the United States about the CCP.
> what is certain is Iran has stated they intend to use nuclear weapons
Is that certain? When have they said that?
>I doubt they would initiate a nuclear strike, knowing it means their annihilation.
If someone with a gun holstered at their waist asked you to give you your money, would you refuse?
If Iran will get access to nuclear weapons, it's status in international politics will change drastically, all leverages the west has on Iran (like the ability to impose sanctions upon human right violations and counter their violent export of the shiite ideology) will more or less disappear
If someone with a gun holstered at their waist asked you to give you your money, would you refuse?
If Iran will get access to nuclear weapons, it's status in international politics will change drastically, all leverages the west has on Iran (like the ability to impose sanctions upon human right violations and counter their violent export of the shiite ideology) will more or less disappear
Is that why we don't have the ability to impose sanctions on North Korea?
Firstly, the NK situation is terrible. South Koreans are basically living with a sword hanging above their neck 24/7.
I don't think that the middle east, being an unstable region to begin with, would benefit from yet such a major destabilizing factor.
Iran has an ability to inflict much more damage upon the west than NK and Pakistan combined. It is an oil rich country, neighbor to the one of the biggest oil exporters in the world and is located in the center one of the busiest naval traffic routes.
I don't think that the middle east, being an unstable region to begin with, would benefit from yet such a major destabilizing factor.
Iran has an ability to inflict much more damage upon the west than NK and Pakistan combined. It is an oil rich country, neighbor to the one of the biggest oil exporters in the world and is located in the center one of the busiest naval traffic routes.
You cannot find similar rhetoric from the US vowing to destroy China. In fact, you'd find the exact opposite.
Your other points rely on a rational actor... rational actors don't take freight ships hostage nor kidnap tourists.
Your other points rely on a rational actor... rational actors don't take freight ships hostage nor kidnap tourists.
> rational actors don't take freight ships hostage not kidnap tourists.
Israel has kidnapped tourists before. Vanunu is still trapped in Israel.
Where has Iran said that they intend to use nuclear weapons?
Israel has kidnapped tourists before. Vanunu is still trapped in Israel.
Where has Iran said that they intend to use nuclear weapons?
> Israel has kidnapped tourists before. Vanunu is still trapped in Israel.
Mordechai Vanunu? His situation is quite a bit different than kidnapping a tourist that literally has done nothing to Iran except show up - or a freight ship traversing international waters. Vanunu leaked a ton of nuclear secrets about Israel and fled - ie, he was no tourist and your point makes no sense.
Whataboutism isn't a good reason to excuse Iran's extremely poor international behavior, nor condone their relentless threats against Israel and other nations (including the US). Nor does whataboutism excuse Iran's direct funding of terrorist groups that have killed Americans and other nationals alike.
With all these discussions, it's important to note the regime of Iran is not the people of Iran. The people are likely amazing and full of culture and history - the regime is oppressive and aggressive, which is not tolerated in modern times.
Mordechai Vanunu? His situation is quite a bit different than kidnapping a tourist that literally has done nothing to Iran except show up - or a freight ship traversing international waters. Vanunu leaked a ton of nuclear secrets about Israel and fled - ie, he was no tourist and your point makes no sense.
Whataboutism isn't a good reason to excuse Iran's extremely poor international behavior, nor condone their relentless threats against Israel and other nations (including the US). Nor does whataboutism excuse Iran's direct funding of terrorist groups that have killed Americans and other nationals alike.
With all these discussions, it's important to note the regime of Iran is not the people of Iran. The people are likely amazing and full of culture and history - the regime is oppressive and aggressive, which is not tolerated in modern times.
He was a tourist in Italy when he was abducted.
And Italy abducted him? I do not follow your point...
Still, keeping the guy who served his full sentence of nearly 20 years in the country (and with various additional restrictions) for anothe 15 years is not a nice thing to do. They should have shot him dead in Rome and be done with it, like in 2.5k other cases.
Nothing to do with the discussion here, just a random thought on the Vanunu matter.
Nothing to do with the discussion here, just a random thought on the Vanunu matter.
It's hard to differentiate an actual threat though. Trump is an example here who also stated he intended to use nuclear weapons, often times in stupidly ignorant ways.
I think there are parallels with Iran, in that a lot of BS & insane rhetorical bluster we hear(d) feed the base so they can maintain power. They need to keep the religious base flustered and angry at an enemy to maintain their own power.
I think there are parallels with Iran, in that a lot of BS & insane rhetorical bluster we hear(d) feed the base so they can maintain power. They need to keep the religious base flustered and angry at an enemy to maintain their own power.
Trump said he'd use nuclear weapons? I must have missed this, source?
While Trump's rhetoric about "fire and fury" and retaliation against other countries was insane for a US President, he never explicitly said anything about nuclear and it's a grasp for others to imply he meant that.
Yeah I wouldn't read to much into his addled 'brain' lol but he also asked his advisors if he could Nuke hurricanes and there are lots of reports that he is fixated on them, asking 'why can't i use them' like a 8 year old wanting to use dangerous adult power tools but WHYYYY. Or responding why do we have them if we don't use them.
Sorry that's probably too much editorializing for HN but it's extremely farcical on its face.
https://time.com/4437089/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-nukes/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879868
Sorry that's probably too much editorializing for HN but it's extremely farcical on its face.
https://time.com/4437089/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-nukes/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879868
This type of attack isn't likely to cause a 'meltdown', since the uranium is usually in a very hot vaporous form while being centrifuged. If the containers rupture, it will spread out and condensate in a thin layer that's not very likely to reach criticality. Nuclear reprocessing absolutely has dangers, but meltdowns aren't really the issue.
Frankly, Israel needs to stop waging these wars in the Middle East. Apart from moral issues, they impact everyone. The refugee crisis is affecting us Europeans. We paid the cost for US wars.
JCPA was working, except for a small group that benefit from its cancellation. Iran agreed to remove its uranium under strict checks and verifications. Why killing it?
JCPA was working, except for a small group that benefit from its cancellation. Iran agreed to remove its uranium under strict checks and verifications. Why killing it?
[deleted]
nullserver(17)
Holocaust day was one week ago, I thought a lot about my relatives that were murdered. The atmosphere in Israel right now is very solemn and difficult (was before but now even more). Seeing the unravelling situation with promises of 60% enrichment, I fear the trains are set in motion and hard to stop. And as 70 years ago, Britain and US knew what the Germans were doing with these trains but did nothing, there is a real possibility of repeat.
Like them or not the Israeli Defense Force is arguably the most effective military in the world. From the Iron Dome, the Uzi, and the Arrow missile, the IDF has a track record of successful military projects. They seem lean and effective, unlike the US military. The US Military recently has had a track record of project failures from the F-35 to the Comanche helicopter and now they are spending $20B for Microsoft Hololens, which I bet is going to be another bust. The US Military could take some lessons from the IDF.
The most effective military...that got owned by some Lebanese guerillas in 2006, and has to bomb kids on beaches with white phosphorous to get their way. Yeah chemical weapons are super effective.
> arguably the most effective military in the world
Militaries are political tools, and different countries have different goals. It'd be like saying a laptop is better than a data center.
Militaries are political tools, and different countries have different goals. It'd be like saying a laptop is better than a data center.
Maybe it helps to have something to do.
Get their arses handed to them by Hezbollah every time, and even by Hamas in Gaza in 2014.
Really, the marketing far exceeds the implementation.
Really, the marketing far exceeds the implementation.
The Uzi seems like an odd thing to brag about.
It's a pretty simple yet effective gun. Maybe the AK-47 of submachine guns.
The Manhattan project was able uranium purified to get a bomb working without PLCs and networks.
All else being equal it's more expensive, but not compared to being unable to keep your network safe from attack. You need to reconfigure the line? Send eight techs down one by one to set new parameters and octople check the first tech's work.